Thursday, November 10, 2011

Dennis Ross Resigning

Obama’s Influential Mideast Envoy to Resign

WASHINGTON — Dennis B. Ross, a seasoned diplomat who has been one of President Obama’s most influential advisers on Iran, the Middle East peace process and the political upheaval in the Arab world, will leave the White House in December, a senior administration official said on Thursday...

Mr. Ross’s departure, the official said, was not a result of disputes over policy.


Which, needless to say, I take as meaning that Mr. Ross's departure was the result of disputes over policy.

Actually, I have no idea what the truth of this case is, although I always thought of Dennis Ross as a fundamentally decent and reasonable guy.

With Mr. Obama heading into what promises to be a tough election year, Middle East experts said there was little incentive for Mr. Obama to thrust himself back into the process. The Republican candidates for president, sensing an opportunity to make inroads among Jewish voters, have emphasized support for Israel and criticized Mr. Obama for what they say is his lack of support for a close ally.


Well, the Republicans should make inroads among Jewish voters because, in truth, Barack Obama has been hostile to the Jewish state and I, among many, many of us, did not appreciate it. I mean, really, who does Barack Obama think that he is that he feels he can tell Jews where we may be allowed to live in Jerusalem?

What is this, fourteenth century Italy? Why is it that century after century non-Jewish leaders feel that Jews may be allowed to live over here, but not over there? Are they kidding with this stuff? Furthermore, why was Barack Obama validating Palestinian-Arab racism against Jews? The only reason that Jews should not be allowed to live in Judea is because of Palestinian racism towards us. It certainly has nothing to do with any (non-existent) peace process.

Mr. Ross was also involved in devising the administration’s pressure tactics against Iran, after Mr. Obama’s initial overtures fell flat. Tensions with Iran have risen in recent days because of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency laying out evidence that Iran has continued to work on a nuclear weapon.


Pressure tactics against Iran? There are pressure tactics against Iran? I suppose if by "pressure tactics" we mean complete capitulation to Iranian nukes then there were "pressure tactics."

The bottom line is that Israel cannot allow Iran to hold a nuclear gun to its head and therefore must do whatever is necessary to prevent that country from attaining those weapons. The problem is that if Israel does what Israel must do, and that the international community actually wants it to do, they will berate that country in the UN and throughout progressive-left forums, both in the US and Europe.

The US does not want Iranians nukes, but will do nothing.

Europe does not want Iranian nukes, but will also do nothing.

The Arab world very definitely doesn't want Iranian nukes, but they are far too feeble to do anything about it, either.

Israel is the one and only country in the world that has both the ability and the will, but when they exercise that ability (if they do so) they will be berated by the very people who actually want them to do what they must do.

The hypocrisy is just mind-boggling and the progressive-left will scream from the hillsides.

My only question is what will you do in that eventuality? Will you stand with Israel or will you stand back and watch as vicious progressive-left thugs beat up on the Jewish state?

This progressive has an idea:

At some point we'd probably have to attack Israel (0+ / 0-)

to stop them, I would think.

Moderation in most things.

by billmosby on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:09:18 PM PST


One would think that this gentleman actually wants the feudal theocratic regime in Tehran to gain nuclear weaponry.

The guy's signature is "Moderation in most things." Apparently the Jewish state of Israel is not among those things, unfortunately.

3 comments:

  1. To be fair, Obama has stood with Israel on some issues although I suspect it was for political necessity rather than an real good will towards Israel. He has been called the most anti-Israel President since Jimmy Carter (or perhaps ever) and I think that's a pretty accurate assessment.

    I know I and others will always remember him as the guy who thought he could tell Jews what to do and where they could build in their own state....their ONLY freaking state. The audacity astounds me. Worse, it is that kind of attitude that enables assholes like the progressive billmosby. He is simply extrapolating from what Obama has said/done to date.

    In my heart I believe America WILL stand with Israel if push comes to shove. I pray I'm right but the mixed messages worry me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Barry Rubin's latest fine analysis fits in here pretty well:

    "Islamist regimes—at least those whose “behavior” is proper--are good. If Islamists exercise political power they will be moderate. Thus, the United States will not merely tolerate but will actually support Islamists taking power.

    The Obama Administration is now on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, and the Taliban (“moderate” wing). It is the equivalent of an American government telling you that Communism and fascism are no threat because they can be tamed by participating in elections and being in power.

    Thus, the Obama Administration has openly sided with Israel’s enemies. I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Saudi Arabia. That would be tolerable. We’re talking here about openly genocidal, antisemitic groups."

    http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/08/it%E2%80%99s-official-obama-administration-promotes-islamist-regimes-insists-they-are-moderate/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rubin's piece is huge.

    I found it hard enough to come out in favor of taking down Iranian nukes, but this?

    Good grief.

    ReplyDelete